Japan had a serious deforestation problem 300 years ago as a consequence of a growing population and unsustainable forest use. Forests were overexploited by logging mainly for timber and fuelwood. By 1570 Japan's population had reached 10 million people and needs for forest products had increased correspondingly. With the advent of the Tokugawa shogunate and peace, followed by rapid growth of cities and construction of castles, temples and shrines, logging increased during the 1600s to a scale never before experienced in Japan. Conflict between villagers and rulers over the use of forest lands became intense. By 1670 the population had increased to nearly 30 million and all the old growth forest had been completely logged, except for in Hokkaido. The supply of timber and other forest products was running out. Soil erosion, floods, landslides and barren lands were becoming common. Japan was headed for ecological disaster. 

There were three principal types of forest land tenure during the Tokugawa period (1603-1867). Feudal lords tenure, communal tenure and individual tenure. Individual tenure failed to develop because individual land ownership was prohibited in principle by the Tokugawa Shogunate. Therefore, almost all Japanese forest land tenure was either the feudal lords tenure or communal. 

Access to the forest owned by feudal lords was strictly limited and those who logged illegally were severely punished. A typical example of forest owned and managed by a feudal lord was the Kiso area that was owned and managed by a relative of the Shogun.

Before the Tokugawa period, Kiso was covered with thick forest but by the late 17th century iso forest resource had deteriorated greatly. The feudal lord therefore carried out the first reform in 1665, instituting seedling protection, strengthening of patrols and selective cutting. The reform reduced timber production by half and cut the feudal lords income severely. Only a few years later the lord ordered an increase in timber production for financial reasons. Even though the reform first failed the second reform was planned in 1724. In this reform, timber production was reduced by more than 60% and this time it succeeded, carrying on for 30 years and thus allowing the forest to recover. 

During the Tokugawa period most Japanese people made their living by agriculture, managing uncultivated mountainous common lands surrounding their villages. Common forest lands provided a wide variety of ecosystem services such as timber, fuelwood, fertilizer, feed, clean water, erosion control etc. In the late 17th century, intensive forestry with artificial planting was begun by members (farmers) of the commons in response to increasing demand for wood. People planted valuable conifers such as sugi and hinoki and developing new techniques for planting, thinning and pruning plantations necessary for high-quality timber. Wandering scholars wrote silviculture manuals and traveled around the country spreading the new technology from village to village. Forest management stimulated new social institutions for the ruling elite and villagers to cooperate on timber production in a way that provided villagers incentives to produce timber: yamawari (dividing use rights of common lands among families), nenkiyama (long term leases of forest lands to villagers by the rulers), and buwakibayashi (villagers producing timber on rulers land and sharing the harvest with the elites). Slowly but surely reforesting took place. 

First of, action on the part of the ruling elite and villagers did not happen until forest resources were severely degraded and conflict arose between the two. New management practices were forced upon the population and breaking the rules meant severe punishment. Reforms sometimes failed due to financial interests and needs. Relying heavily on one sector for the majority of income was a bad strategy. A more diversified income probably helped later reforms to succeed. New forest management practices lead to the development of new social institutions that were more cooperative and respectful of usage rights. During hard times forests may have been overexploited but reforestation efforts during easier times helped prevent the worst of outcomes. The feudal lords were probably not very lenient towards villagers and ordinary people must have, at first, disliked the decision to cut back on timber production and being punished for logging in certain areas. However, they adapted to this new reality and started planting trees to meet the demand. Its a case of non-democratic rule that actually had a positive outcome in terms of more sustainable use of Japan's forests. Now, it should be mentioned that forests were again overexploitation during the second world war. And perhaps the previous reforms only succeeded due to times of peace. It also should be mentioned that after the war forests, both from common and lords lands, where taken up into public lands managed by the state. But it's still an interesting example to ponder. Perhaps a mix of both top-down and bottom-up rules is needed but to achieve successful management but its hard to imagine it happening without some amount of unpopular decision-making if the society is large.

Similar to the case of TTP a very controversial clause in the TTIP is the Investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS). The ISDS would allow corporations to sue governments, for any government action (at any level, including local government level) that limits a corporation's future profits. One example of how the ISDS clause in TTIP would impact countries can be found in the case of the Swedish, part state owned, energy company Vattenfall suing the German government over the issue of terminating nuclear power plants. Vattenfall demands payouts of 4,7 billion euros (Der Spiegel), and has caused outrage in Germany. Other examples includes tobacco companies suing the Australian government over health labeling of cigarettes, and fracking companies suing the Canadian government over environmental protection. The original justification for introducing ISDS in trade agreements was for trade deals with countries where the judicial system was weak in protecting foreign investors. But this is not the case with either the EU or the US. According to the latest UN report on the topic, ISDS cases has increased from 0 in 1992 to 514 in 2012.

There is now a growing civil society resistance to TTIP and ISDS inclusion in the TTIP negotiations. Last month there were 450 protest actions across 24 member states (The Greens Europe). The European NGO Finance Watch writes about ISDS that "the very principle of such a mechanism is anti-democratic, because it allows investors to challenge legitimate regulations and other rules that have been created and voted by democratic institutions with a view to protecting their citizens". Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has reported that of 560 lobby encounters that the European Commission trade department held to prepare the negotiations, 520 (92%) were with business lobbyists, while only 26 (4%) were with public interest groups (CEO). That must be considered corporate capture. A large number of European scientists have also voiced concern over ISDS legal nature, quote "there is little evidence linking the conclusion of the Treaties to increased flows of foreign direct investment, and there is little evidence that they contribute to other development goals, such as encouraging good governance" (University of Kent). And a recent study from Tufts University has concluded through modelling that TTIP could lead to: net loss in exports for the EU, a net loss in GDP, and a loss in employment of some 600 000 jobs, and the author conclude by stating that "In the current context of austerity, high unemployment and low growth, increasing the pressure on labor incomes would further harm economic activity" (Capaldo, 2014).

Many environmental organisations fear that the TTIP will ignite a "race to the bottom" regarding environmental regulations in the EU, so that they come to resemble the US far weaker regulatory system. Most likely the TTIP will accelerate the privatization of public goods and services such as National Health systems. This could have tremendous effects on public health. And many analysts agree that TTIP would allow big food corporations to avoid food safety regulations and undermine sustainable agricultural practices in the rush for profits and trade. For example, the US has much weaker standards on animal welfare, ecosystem protection and GMO labeling. These are serious citizen concerns that has not been sufficiently addressed by governments wishing to take part of the TTIP.

By the look of it European members are not really showing any strong leadership the year before UN Climate Change conference in Paris (2015). To reach the international goal of staying below 2 degrees warming the world's greenhouse gas emissions has to drop 80 % by 2050 (compared to 1990). Some environmental experts, such as Johan Rockström, argue that to even have a chance of reaching that goal the EU needs to have a target of at least 60% reduction in greenhouse gasses emissions by 2030. Decisions are to be made next week at the European Council. There is still time to take action! Below are two petitions you can sign to show your support for stronger European climate targets.

The European Council decided Europe's climate future yesterday. The results are lower than many environmentalists and scientists hoped for, set at targets of 27% energy efficiency, 27% renewables and 40% GHG emissions to be met by 2030 (Supermiljöbloggen). The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) condemned last nights outcome which escalated into a race to the bottom. Jeremy Wates, EEB Secretary General, said that “With this abysmal result, Europe’s leaders have failed their citizens and failed the world. More and more extreme weather events such as flooding and wildfires are already hurting people and their communities all across Europe. Adopting a set of targets to cut energy waste by 40%, roll out sustainable renewables to 45% of the energy mix and cut emissions by 60% is what the science of climate change demands, and is also what will help Europe get on its feet.” (EEB Press release). Others say that it is a first good step, showing other regions of the world that Europe has ambitions to lower greenhouse emissions. However, any final decisions about targets may change in accordance with the UN climate summit in 2015. The Swedish representatives failed to reach higher targets and seems to have focused most of their energy on voting each other down. The conservatives voted down red/greens higher targets, after which S made up some new much less ambitious target that in the end only got the support of SD.